9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against ITAT judgment regarding addition of income as labour income, treatment of income earned from undisclosed sources, and allowance of interest expenditure as business expenditure.
Issue A - Addition of labour income: The Tribunal relied on its own order and dismissed Revenue's appeal. The Division Bench observed that the assessee had been in the stone crushing business for over 30 years, providing machinery for labour work. The Tribunal found that the assessee was exploiting land and machinery for business purposes, making it a business income rather than income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal noted the commercial exploitation of assets and the long-standing nature of the business, concluding that the income derived from labour was indeed business income. Issue B - Treatment of income from undisclosed sources: The Assessing Officer had credited a significant amount as labour income, which the assessee failed to establish as genuine. The AO treated this amount as income from undisclosed sources under section 68 of the Act. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had already disclosed this amount as business income for the year, thus section 68 did not apply. The Tribunal concluded that the labour income was derived from commercial asset exploitation and was therefore business income, not income from undisclosed sources. Issue C - Allowance of interest expenditure: The AO disallowed interest expenditure, claiming it was not paid to the bank and therefore not allowable under section 43B of the Act. The Tribunal, having determined the income as business income and not from undisclosed sources, deleted the addition of interest expenditure. However, a portion of the interest amount was confirmed as not paid to the bank. The Tribunal's decision on interest expenditure was a corollary to its conclusion on the nature of income, and did not give rise to a separate question of law. The Tax Appeal was ultimately dismissed based on these findings.
|
